Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on Today at 02:07:03 PM

Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 01:57:47 PM

This reminded me of another fundamental problem with NFTs, both the owner and anybody else in the world can also download the "art".

This isn't a problem, but a feature. Yes, anyone can download the art, but none of them can provide a proof of ownership of the art except the current owner. Anyone who gives me this article and tells me NFTs are useless is benighted the least.

It's like telling me they own BTC without providing me a valid signature. Okay, you can enjoy looking at the address, but you don't have the rights to move the BTC. When you transact BTC, you do exactly the same thing; you transfer the rights of those BTC. A sign that says it's not yours anymore.

Well, the big difference here is that with BTC there's no 'enjoying' / joy in looking at an address, nor can that address by itself be otherwise meaningfully 'used' compared to image NFTs which are used as profile pictures or printed for the joy of looking at them.

NFTs are basically (exclusive?) rights to an image (or something else) but instead of being a written contract, it's on a Blockchain. In both cases however, people can steal / copy your owned object of course. That's why the NFT (or contract) exists: to allow you to go to court, prove the ownership and have the stolen item / image taken down / returned.

In both cases, you need to go through a legal route if someone infringed your copyright / stole your item. NFT doesn't 'fix' this. Worst case (highly probably), in most countries an NFT is not accepted in court at all.